Opinion: Guest Opinions

Charlie Danaher: No compassion in helping others die

"Every creature is better alive than dead, men and moose and pine trees, and he who understands it aright will rather preserve its life than destroy it."

—Henry David Thoreau

Nobody looks forward to the time in their lives where they can no longer care for themselves. No one wants to be a burden on their loved ones. And surely nobody wants to ever be incapacitated, being at the mercy of those providing their care. But we should ask, what do we do with such uncertainty and discomfort?

Proposition 106 supporters claim that this measure promotes compassion. I would suggest that we don't show compassion to our loved ones by helping them take their lives.

A hospice nurse aide cares for a dying man in his final days. This election, Colorado voters will decide Proposition 106, the "End of Life Options Act." (Camera file)

The existence of physician-assisted suicide bills reflects a fundamental shift in our culture. And not a healthy one.

Our loved ones growing old offer us one of life's greatest opportunities to perform charitable acts. Having the obligation to care for those who cannot care for themselves is a good thing.

Deliberately creating a culture that removes this natural obligation, and instead introduces a conflict in the minds of all parties involved — the patient, the family, the doctors — fundamentally corrupts this special relationship.

And it's not just me who thinks so.

The AMA states:

Advertisement

It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress — such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness — may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good.

Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.

Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:

a) Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.

b) Must respect patient autonomy.

c) Must provide good communication and emotional support.

d) Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.

The Denver Post opposes this measure, in their words, "because we fear the cultural, legal and medical shift that it would create in Colorado."

It doesn't take a genius to imagine how such a deadly option can affect a patient's care in those critical periods. It's easy to see how family members might choose to avoid the opportunity to show love and mercy to the most vulnerable in our society, instead being lulled by so-called compassion.

The Post continues, "Those facing their final months are in a vulnerable place, a time when an individual is susceptible to pressures both subtle and overt, susceptible to self-imposed guilt over burdening family and worries about spending hard-earned savings on care. Such patients also are susceptible to depression and its dark influences on decision-making."

The psychological phenomena associated with this societal shift is not only dangerous to those who need care, it also has a deleterious effect on the rest of us. I would argue that the negative effect it has on the rest of us is even worse. For it promotes a utilitarian culture. Whereby, instead of seeing every person with an inherent worth, we assess their value — and the value in their continued living — from a practical standpoint. Instead of naturally wanting to help people — to love them, console them, provide and care for them — we instead ask whether they would be better off dead.

Let's be honest, in doing so, we're not just asking if they'd be better off dead, we're asking if we'd be better off if they were dead. Let's not go there.

At this point I haven't even addressed the issue of health care rationing. Looking forward, it's hard not to imagine that this, too, will factor into the pressure that's placed on the sick to end their lives.

I can imagine someone challenging me on my espoused libertarian principles: That people should be able to make their own decisions. Fair enough. To that I would say, I think people can kill themselves, even if it is considered an immoral act. As with other life choices, we should allow people to sin. But that doesn't mean that we encourage it. And we certainly should never become complicit in the activity.

We should remember that the purpose and obligation of our government is to support the common good. We need to be vigilant in our support of policies that pursue this worthy goal.

Maintaining human dignity requires that we heal and comfort, not kill.

Clubs keeping eye on RPI rankingsIn the age of RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) determining playoff seeding in Colorado prep sports, playing a championship schedule has become more important than ever for any team expecting to compete for a state title. Full Story

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story